What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

---

No, it shows that they hate creationists for trying to subvert and bypass the scientific method.

quote:

---

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.

---

I saw this quoted in another thread and thought it pertinent to this one - it comes from About – Uncommon Descent.This is very interesting. It makes clear that ID aims to counter materialism. But that can only be the case if the designer is assumed a-priori to be non-material. This is not a scientific starting point. It's clear therfore that ID is not scientific.It's also a very interesting example of what confirmation bias does to people's thinking. 'Corrupted', 'illegitimate' - these are the words of people who hate the fact that science does not need God to explain the universe. Unfortunately for them, this is how things are.I'm assuming that this website has some status in the ID community. Correct me if I'm wrong.

quote:

---

The question I've been seeking an answer to for lo these many messages is very simple: If ID has nothing to say about a designer, how can it say that "design without a designer" is impossible. Isn't that saying something about the designer?

---

ID says much more than that about a designer, Percy.It says a designer must have been.......designed! Isn't that great Unless Smooth Operator can explain why not, of course

Hi So,to generate a tree like this for real you need to do it systematically- decide what the characters are you are analysing (it needs to be quite a few)
- generate a tree using the right methodologyit would be interesting to see what happens!My criticism of this tree is that you've been selective in terms of the kinds of 'vessel' that you're including, and I don't think you'd get the same result if you truly sampled the population of 'vessels' out there. You've chosen some that happen to fit into this tree structure. For example you've chosen silver coffee cups because they could conceivably lead to frying pans, not because they are representative of coffee cups. You've focussed on the 'metal' character of these items.Plus this structure is incompatible with the 'dates' of the vessels in the real world. This model claims that frying pans evolved from silver coffee cups. Have you cross-checked that with the origin dates of silver coffee cups and frying pans? If your model is correct, that cross-reference should hold up. It won't.Plus I don't think you've used enough characters in your analysis.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

quote:

---

ERVs are widespread through all species. Ther are functional sequences whose operation is to modify the genome itself and adapt the individual to teh environment.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are believed to be the selfish remnants of ancient RNA viruses that invaded the cells of organisms millions of years ago and now merely free-ride the genome in order to be replicated. This selfish gene thinking still dominates the public scene, but well-informed biologists know that the view among researchers is rapidly changing. Increasingly, ancient RNA viruses and their remnants are being thought of as
having played (and still do) a significant role in protein evolution, gene structure, and transcriptional regulation. As argued in part 3 of this series of articles, ERVs may be the executors of genetic variation, and qualify as
specifically designed variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs) responsible for variation in higher organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

http://www.evoinfo.org/Publications/A/Borger4.pdf

---

This is funny!We SEE ervs being formed now in Koalas as an infectious strain endogenises
We SEE that ervs resemble virus genes in various kinds of virus groups
We SEE that 8-9% of our genome is occupied by these viral remnants, degraded to various extents.
We SEE that the sequences of many of these ervs do not appear to be under selective control, and correlate with other measures of species divergence.
We SEE that some of these genes have functions, eg syncytin, but that most don't appear to
We now see that non-retroviruses can also be endogenised - and interestingly, the first ones to have been found are viruses where the virus genetic material is often located very close to the host DNA.We are expected to believe that the best way God could have thought of to control genes is to used mashed up and degraded copies of viruses.and this is science?

Smooth Operator,

quote:

---

If that's the case than only one lineage of animals would have eyes. But that's not the case. But than you just take those animal that have the most similar eyes and call them one lineage and claim that they are a nested hierarchy. That's unfalsifiable. I could calim that only certain lineages of cars have airbags, only those that I pick and they than fall into a nested hierarchy.

---

The point of doing phylogenetic trees is that you use multiple characters. Of course, if you use one characteristic of anything, or a few, you can probably generate something that looks like a nested hierarchy for it.So, if you use say 20 characteristics of cars, you're going to get a confusing picture because there is extensive 'horizontal gene transfer' between models and manufacturers. A clear nested pattern will not emerge.However, if we use 20 characteristics of living creatures, we find that almost always they happen to fall naturally into a hierarchy. And that different trees constructed via different methods give very similar hierarchies.This is why we think metazoan life falls into a nested hierarchy.